Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Foundation v DIT (ITAT Chennai)- The principle that the institutions run by the charitable societies may collect fees and service charges does not mean that the institutions can charge fees, etc, at commercial rates from all the people without giving any element of charity to needy people.
Indian Additives Limited Vs The ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Fact that a particular MAM used by the taxpayer cannot be rejected without providing any cogent reasons. Further, the Tribunal has mentioned that if there exist significant amount of purchases from Associates enterprises , the same cannot be included while computing the gross margins under the Resale Price Method [RPM].
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum Div I) Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Chennai)- The Tribunal has held that the assessee-company has discharged its interest liability and instead of making payment in cash it has issued share capital to the Government as per the G.O. in question. Hence, the provisions of section 41(1)(a) of the Act are not attracted at all. Therefore, the conversion of the payment in the share capital has to be treated as proper discharge of interest payments. This decision is applicable to the facts of this case mutatis mutandis. In view of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that this issue stands allowed in favour of the assessees in all these appeals.
ACIT Vs M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – A perusal of the terms and conditions as also the invoices as found in the paper book clearly shows that sales tax and excise duty had been collected on the supply of materials by the vendors to the assessee. In these circumstances, in view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. in S.L.P. No. 18012/2009 dated 17-08-2010, referred to supra, we are of the view that the transaction involved in the present case is a contract for sale and not a contract for carrying out any works.
Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) -Once there is no claim of income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, there cannot be any disallowance in relation to an investment which may or may not give rise to any Oincome which does not form part of the total income. In the present case it is noticed thatnone of the investments made by the assessee has generated any dividend income which has been claimed by the assessee ato be not to form part of the total income. In the circumstances, as it is noticed that the assessee does not have any income which does not form part of the total income nor has the assessee made such a claim, we are of the view that no disallowance under sec. 14A can be made on the assessee for the relevant assessment year.
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Tiruchirapalli (ITAT Chennai) -Where the AO has considered all the points, on the basis of which the CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263, following the decision of the ITAT and High Court in the case of the assessee itself, proceedings initiated u/s 263 are not valid as it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd. The taxpayer was a housing finance company. The taxpayer had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act (ITA) in respect of securitization income earned from the business of long term housing finance. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction to the taxpayer on the basis that the taxpayer had received the proceeds on loan securitization and not the interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the taxpayer. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the AO preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Rane Brake Lining Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not invoked the provisions of sec. 14A. In fact the Assessing Officer has pointed out that the total investment in shares as on 31.03.2003 was Rs. 26,00,31,694/- which included a sum of Rs. 5,28,82,350/- invested during the year. No dividend income has also been admitted during the relevant assessment year. A peRs.rusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee had put forward the plea that it had surplus and reserves sufficient to cover such investment in purchase of shares.
Assessment dispute: ITAT Chennai ruling on book profit computation, bad debts provision, and disputed tax liabilities under Section 115JB.
The above four appeals filed by the Revenue, for assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06, are directed against the common order dated 27-5-2008 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-VIII, Chennai. In all these appeals almost identical issues are involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are deciding them by a common order.
